For those who are interested, the Ayres blog has a photo up of the actual front page of the SF Examiner yesterday, which featured the Ayres story: "Driving Accusers Crazy- Livid families say they have evidence child psychiatrist of molestation is mentally competent"

We could have predicted this: Ayres' lawyer has scheduled some status meeting for Monday, October 3. Ayres was supposed to go to Napa State Hospital on October 6 but no one believes he will. What excuse willl he have now? It's probably something that the DA and his lawyer cooked up together. After all, the San Mateo District Attorney's office itself hired Ayres to evaluate boys over the years. We know of a lawyer who predicted to us five years ago that the San Mateo DA would find a way to drag out the Ayres case because they don't want to be sued.William Ayres blog has more info:

Although District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe has for years sent out what is supposed to be an all inclusive daily press release of cases of interest in the Redwood City courthouse for reporters, he mystifyingly neglected to alert the reporters about this hearing.

It's even more mystifying when you consider that Ayres was scheduled to go to Napa on October 6. Wagstaffe knew that the public was very interested in this, as are reporters. Yet he didn't tell anyone that Ayres wasn't going to Napa on the 6th and he didn't tell reporters about the hearing that occurred on October 4.

On September 28, a mother of a victim happened to call the court clerk to check on the October 6 hearing. She was told there would be no hearing on that date, but that there would be one on October 3. The Ayres blog posted on this.

But the reporters for the San Mateo County Times were left in the dark. When the reporter called Wagstaffe the day after the October 3 hearing, Wagstaffe according to the reporter" acted like he didn't know it had happened."

Although Wagstaffe pretends to be transparent, he likes to hide hearings and cases from the public -especially if the cases make his County look bad. The DA's office hired Ayres over the years to evaluate boys, and we believe they are not pursuing this case because of potential lawsuits.

Wagstaffe we believe was the one who got the time changed on the key August 22 hearing to determine if they were going to retry Ayres. Wagstaffe didn't tell the press or the public and we believe Wagstaffe did this because he knew there would be outrage for their decision not to retry him.

If a mother of a victim knew about the hearing change last week, it's laughable to think that DA Wagstaffe - a self described micromanager who read severything that comes into his office- had no idea about the latest hearing in he Ayres case- a national case that has been written about in the New York Times .

His office has violated Marsy's Law in the Ayres case over and over and over in the last few years. They never alert victims about hearings. And now he's hiding crucial hearings and pretending not to know about them. Wagstaffe is a sneak all right.

The question is: WHY IS HE ATTEMPTING TO KEEP THE AYRES HEARINGS A SECRET?

Despite San Mateo District Attorney Wagstaffe's sneaky efforts to hide the Ayres hearing on Monday from the public and the press, two parents of an Ayres victim did attend the hearing. They were the only ones there.

Prosecutor Mckowan wouldn't even look at them.

The parents reported to the Ayres blog that Judge John Grandsaert threatened someone with contempt if the paperwork to get Ayres into Napa wasn't done. They are not reporters and weren't sure who was being threatened - possibly Napa, possibly Ayres' lawyer.

However, Mckowan told a reporter from the Mercury News today that it was THE COURT who hadn't had the necessary paper work in order.

If that were true, how could Judge Grandsaert order his own court in contempt?

Is this yet one more lie in a series of lies told by Mckowan on this case?

The Ayres blog reported on the hearing three days before the press reported on it:

The owner of the William Ayres blog critiques the info in the Mercury News story about the delay and finds it wanting. Here's an excerpt:

Missing Information:The Mercury News fails to mention the judge's statement that if ayres is not in lockup by the new date (Wednesday, October 26th, 2011) that someone would be found in contempt of court.

We're not 100% clear ourselves who would be found in contempt. The parents of a victim were in the courtroom, and they reported the information to us (apparently there was NO PRESS present). The parents indicate that it was Napa State that would be held in contempt, but that there's a possibility that it might have been ayres or McDougall that would be held in contempt, they weren't entirely clear.

Either prosecutor McKowan didn't tell the press about the contempt order, or perhaps the press didn't find it interesting enough to print, but I have a problem with that too....

Further: At last Monday's hearing, Judge Grandsaert ordered the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was properly provided to Napa State so that ayres could be in lockup by the new October 26th deadline. Which would lead me to believe that it was, in fact ayres and/or McDougall who would be found in contempt if ayres is not locked up by the new deadline.

Point: The fact that a contempt charge possibility was discussed by Judge Grandsaert at all is very problematic for McKowan.

More critique from the Ayres blog of prosecutor Mckowan's problematic statements about what happened at Monday's Ayres hearing ... you know, the secret one that DA Wagstaffe hid from victims and their families:

Logical holes: If McKowan was the source of the information that the delay was because the court failed to provide the necessary paperwork to Napa State, then the whole question of a contempt order becomes a thorny logical problem:

IF McKowan told the press that the Court was responsible for the delay THEN it doesn't make ANY sense for the judge to have had ANY discussion of contempt. The press should have asked McKowan: "Why, then would ayres or his lawyer -- or even Napa State for that matter -- be held in contempt if ayres does not report by the new date." THEREFORE it doesn't make sense for McKowan to claim that the court was responsible for the delay, and I would argue that this is some kind of misrepresentation of fact, deliberate or otherwise... And the press should have pointed this out to McKowan (or whoever their source was.)

UNLESS Judge Grandsaert was saying that the COURT would be found in contempt if ayres isn't admitted by the October 26th. date (Because the Court was late in providing the paperwork.) BUT: it seems silly that the court would warn itself about the possibility of contempt against itself, AND it doesn't make any sense anyway, because the court ORDERED the defense attorney to make sure that the paperwork was submitted to Napa on time for his conviction.

The Good Lord knows, I certainly find the court in contempt, but I suppose that's irrelevant.

A lack of beds has once again delayed alleged child molester William Ayres’ admission into Napa State Hospital, leaving him free on bail for at least three more weeks, San Mateo County’s District Attorney said Monday.

Ayres, 79, the prominent child psychologist accused of molesting patients during physical exams, was supposed to enter the hospital by Thursday.

Last week, prosecutor Melissa McKowen told the San Mateo County Times that the delay was due to missing paperwork. But on Monday, District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said the real reason for the delay is hospital overcrowding. “They didn’t have a bed space up there,” Wagstaffe said.

Note that as usual the prosecutor tells one story to reporters and her boss, DA Wagstaffe tells another. She says the delay is due to missing paper work but Wagstaffe said it's due to overcrowding. Mckowan has shown over and over that she doesn't care about the truth and will say whatever pops into her head at the moment.

Why do they keep this patholgical liar on at the DA's office?

Wagstaffe told the Examiner reporter that his Chief Deputy DA Karen Guidotti" forgot" to tell him that Ayres wasn't going to Napa on October 6, or about the emergency hearing they had on Ayres on October 3.

Wagstaffe - a self described micro-manager who has bragged to reporters about staying on top of every little thing in his office- not knowing the latest in the biggest case to come out of his office in years?

There is a new article in the San Francisco Examiner about the delay to william ayres' commitment to Napa State Hospital to "treat" his alleged dementia, which allowed him to escape retrial on charges that he molested many young boys under the guise of providing psychiatric care.

The news article talks about the fact that prosecutor McKowan made one claim to the press -- The Court didn't provide necessary paperwork -- while DA Wagstaffe made an entirely different claim about availability of bed space. It also mentions that the DA claims that the judge denied a prosecution request to lock ayres up while awaiting a bed at Napa State. (How did Wagstaffe know that this was requested, if he didn't know that McKowan had claimed that the court was responsible, or that the judge had threatened contempt?) The article also repeats the 11-1 guilt vote on ONE charge for the criminal trial, even though news stories at the time reported that this was the case for SIX of the charges.

NOBODY seems able to get their story straight. At least they could all make an effort to tell the same lies.

I
agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and
chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole
discretion of MaleSurvivor. I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor
resources are AT-WILL,
and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for
any reason by MaleSurvivor.